Nearly 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have joined together to sponsor legislation that would expedite the cleanup and restoration of federal forests after catastrophic events such as wildfires, hurricanes and windstorms.-

-The “Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act,” HR 4200, is modeled after the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which provides expedited procedures to protect communities from wildfires. Its introduction comes after nearly two years of hearings by the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee of the House Resources Committee that focused on problems plaguing the nation’s forests after catastrophic events.

-“Today in America’s forests, it can take three years for the federal government to cut a burned, dead tree after a fire.- And by the time the decision is finally made, the trees have often rotted, become bug infested or lost most of their value.- The Government Accountability Office reports that upwards of a million acres of forestland is in need of replanting.- We can, and should, do better that,” said Congressman Greg Walden, chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.-

At a Glance

Provisions of the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act of 2005 include:

-Limits the removal of timber to trees that are down, dead, broken or severely root sprung, where mortality is probable within five years of the event;

-Requires thorough environmental review, including full evaluation of the environmental effects of a catastrophic event recovery project;

-Does not allow timber harvest in areas designated as Wilderness, National Parks or National Monuments;

-Requires an expedited National Environmental Policy Act procedural review, and mandates compliance with all environmental laws;

-Uses the same guidelines for public notice, appeals and judicial review established in the overwhelmingly bipartisan and effective Healthy Forests Restoration Act;

-Strictly prohibits the creation of permanent roads in forestlands;

-Increases the amount of public land that is rehabilitated, preventing future wildfires, insect infestation and disease outbreak;

-Requires agencies to work in cooperation with states, local governments, tribes, land-grant universities and non-governmental organizations in the development of projects;

-Requires the establishment of native or beneficial plants according to the approved forest or resource management plan;

-Strictly prohibits the replanting of forest plantations;

-Increases the amount of peer reviewed scientific research conducted and made available to the public, federal land managers and policy makers; and,

-Is funded through existing trust funds and unobligated balances.

TV show rethinks forestsAll is not well these days in Oregon’s forests, and their future remains uncertain. While lawyers wrangle over forest policy in federal courtrooms, many forests face catastrophic fire and disease. Lawsuits and countersuits over species protections have stalled harvests of public timber, but the habitats in question are getting no better. Dozens of sawmills have closed. Small timber-based communities are in trouble. No one involved in these conflicts seems to trust anyone who has a differing viewpoint, and no side appears to be “winning.”

As we aspire to maintain “pristine forests,” University of Minnesota professor Jim Bowyer challenges the ethics of shifting our timber production and its environmental impacts to other countries.

Leslie Weldon, forest supervisor on the Deschutes National Forest, talks about fire and fire suppression, saying: “We need a little bit of a reality check on the values we have as a country. As citizens, we may think that we value the environment and are conservationists and want these lands to stay healthy, but at times our behavior says differently.”

“Rethinking the Forests” airing at 9 p.m. Nov. 21 on Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) television ventures outside the usual arguments about “the timber crisis” to find new voices with fresh perspectives.

The show doesn’t provide many answers, but it does contend that we may have been asking some wrong questions – barking up the wrong trees, so to speak.